global

Many of my past pursuits have been dedicated towards bringing gender equality towards men in the family law courts. However, being consistent in my belief that both genders face unique forms of discrimination, I feel that the “Essure” birth control product is sacrificing the health of our female population for the sake of profiteering on behalf of companies like Bayer and the doctors who accept their payments to push their dangerous products.

A CNN analysis shows that from August 2013 through December 2017, Bayer Pharmaceuticals paid 11,850 doctors $2.5 million related to Essure. Bayer recently announced it would pull the device off the market.

While all forms of birth control, aside from abstinence, involve a certain level of risk regarding side-effects, permanent forms of birth control like “Essure” pose the most risk. It is a procedure that involves implanting sharp metal coils into the Fallopian tubes from a woman’s cervix which causes scar tissue, ultimately leading towards a blockage that will block sperm entry. The procedure sounds good in theory, but the risk for infections and the sharp coils damaging surrounding tissues are severe.

I have personally spoken to and surveyed hundreds of women over the last few weeks , some who were just in their early 20s, who have had to undergo hysterectomies, and in many cases claim they were not told that the procedure was permanent nor potentially dangerous. Hormonal birth control pills increase a woman’s chance of developing blood clots or suffering a heart attack, however, such risks can be greatly minimized by avoiding smoking and heavy drinking. When it comes to implantable devices like Essure, lifestyle choices have little effect on whether or not the patient will develop problems later on down the line. Hair-loss, heavy bleeding, and death are possible side-effects of this device.

This situation is far too familiar in our health-care system. Huge pharmaceutical companies suppressing natural medicines like cannabis or other forms of complimentary medicine, so that they can issue out their lobbying money towards hospitals in order to turn a profit. We are talking about a woman’s reproductive organ here! Stories like these go to show us that the action of sex should only be carried out if the subject is participating with a potential long-term mate. Regardless of the methods used, there is also a 1% chance rate of failure.

We forget that the biological function of sexual activity is for reproduction, not for mere entertainment. If you are a patient looking into reducing unwanted pregnancies yet still want intimacy, there are many other safer alternatives than to elect to permanently disfigure your body. The same goes for men. Cutting and litigating tubes and veins in your body just so you can have sex without the possibility of pregnancy seems far too dangerous in my mind. This is further evidence of why we need better sex education in our schools. We need broader discussions on the emotional, spiritual, and financial ramifications of sexual activity.

Regardless of how one might feel about birth control methods, we should all agree that this dangerous device be taken off the market. Sacrificing the health of our mothers, daughters, and sisters just so a major pharmaceutical company can make millions, just isn’t worth it. And shame on the doctors and the educational institutions who train them to ignore alternative medicine. Atleast in the UK, doctors are trained to be open towards alternative therapies like “Imagery” , “Acupuncture”, and herbal therapy.

The USA tends to operate as usual. If there is no profit margin for them, then they aren’t interested in the potential benefits. They are more concerned with treating their pocket books instead of their patients. The AMA (American Medical Association) artificially controls the amount of doctors we have in circulation, their wages, and their prescribing conduct. Hospitals won’t even disclose the prices of their services to non-insured patients! So much for a free-market system of trade! Instead, the medical industry operates on secrecy and veils to hide their misconduct.

Loujain Alhathlou, 28, of Saudi Arabia, is a well-known middle eastern women’s rights activist. In her homeland, women are barred from the simple act of driving a vehicle without a husband’s permission. Referencing my book, “Global Human Trafficking in the Family Law courts”, I highlight ways in which men are treated unfairly in society, especially when it comes to finances, divorce, custody, social aspect, and military service requirements. While I often criticize feminism in the west, there is no argument that a moderate amount of feminism is certainly needed in the middle east. While feminism was very apparent in the west during the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, modern feminism in the west often appears to be overly aggressive. (witch hunting?) However, in the middle east, women are still treated as if it were the middle ages. Women in the west, especially feminists or anyone who calls themselves a human rights activist should support this brave woman who has put her life on the line to give women the basic right to live in society an enjoy simple privileges such as driving a car. I encourage everyone to reach out to amnesty international in support of this young woman by emailing their directors at : report@aiusa.org

Nalini-Global

Via Washington Post

It was just days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s March visit to the United States when Loujain al-Hathloul, one of Saudi Arabia’s most high profile feminists, was stopped by security officers as she drove on a highway near her university in Abu Dhabi.

The 28-year-old was taken from her vehicle and spirited away to her home country on a plane.

Hathloul spent several days in prison before being released, and she was banned from using social media or leaving the country as the Saudi heir apparent embarked on his marathon three-week public relations blitz in the United States, where he met with President Trump as well as Oprah Winfrey and others.

The activist’s rendition from the United Arab Emirates, where she was studying for a master’s degree, highlights the contradiction between Saudi Arabia’s public relations campaign touting reform and the reality on the ground for those asking for basic rights for women.

It also demonstrates the close cooperation between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which together have promoted a model in the region that prioritizes stability and economic development while harshly suppressing political activism.

The details of Hathloul’s forced return were recounted by people with knowledge of the incident, who were granted anonymity because they fear reprisals. Authorities in Riyadh did not respond to requests for comment on Sunday.

The Post’s Loveday Morris visited a motorcycle driving school in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. For the first time, women there are learning how to ride motorcycles.(Loveday Morris, Joyce Lee/The Washington Post)

Despite apparently complying with Saudi Arabia’s attempts to silence her — Hathloul’s last tweet to her 316,000 followers was on March 12 — she was arrested again last week in what appeared to be a particularly brutal crackdown on female activists in the kingdom.

A total of seven Saudis were detained — five women and two men who had supported their cause, including a lawyer who had represented Hathloul in the past. They were accused of crimes including “suspicious contact with foreign parties” and undermining the “security and stability” of Saudi Arabia, and they have been publicly vilified in pro-government media in what activists have described as a vicious smear campaign.

“Loujain should be celebrated now,” said Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi writer in self-imposed exile in the United States. “This is so unneeded right after the huge effort that MBS [Mohammed bin Salman] made in the United States, presenting himself as a reformer.”

Hathloul’s activism focused on women being allowed to drive and on ending the country’s restrictive male guardianship system, which meant women required permission from a male relative to access many government services.

The movement had some success and had appeared to be in step with Mohammed’s vision to modernize Saudi Arabia.

The kingdom granted women the right to drive last year and guardianship laws were eased. Women can now supposedly access government services and open businesses without a man’s permission, though in practice it is still often requested, women say. A guardian’s permission is still required for women to travel or marry.

But the kingdom’s inching reforms have come alongside a clampdown on activists, with an increasingly oppressive environment for those who call for changes. Human Rights Watch described it as having sparked a “frenzy of fear” for those genuinely engaged in reform.

“This arrest campaign is an arrest campaign against feminism in Saudi,” said one female activist who knows some of those detained. “Even the men who were arrested, they were with us.”

At 2:30 p.m. on May 15, Hathloul’s house was raided and she was arrested in her bedroom, according to Alqst, a Saudi human rights group based in London. She was taken to al-Hair prison, the group said, the same jail where she was held after she was seized in the United Arab Emirates. Those detained have since been transferred to Jiddah, according to human rights groups.

She’s no stranger to detention. Hathloul rose to prominence in 2014, when she got in her car in neighboring Abu Dhabi and tried to drive across the border to Saudi Arabia. She was arrested and referred to a terrorism court but was released before being tried after 73 days in detention.

The following year she stood in local council elections, after a royal decree allowed women to both vote and run for office. However, her name was never added to the ballot.

She was detained again in June 2017 after returning from a family visit to the United States.

Her activism has brought her international recognition. Last year she was photographed alongside actress Meghan Markle, who married Britain’s Prince Harry on Saturday, at a humanitarian summit in Canada. She was ranked 45th on a list of the most influential Arabs in the world by Arabian Business magazine last year.

But it has come at a cost. Saudi Arabia’s Okaz newspaper reported on Sunday that those arrested could face up to 20 years in jail. They have been publicly branded traitors by pro-government ­media.

Those detained span several generations of Saudi feminists.

Aziza al-Youssef, a professor at King Saud University, has been campaigning for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia for decades. When women signed a petition against the guardianship system, she took it to the royal palace.

Also detained was Aisha al-Mana, a 70-year-old who was among the first to challenge the driving ban, one of more than 40 women who drove in a convoy in Riyadh in 1990, along with ­Madeha al-Ajroush, a psychotherapist in her mid-60s, who is also now in detention.

“Loujain, Aziza and other activists who use their real identities are very brave,” said the Saudi activist, who has campaigned online anonymously. “They have very supportive families and nice lives but they chose to be the voice for us.”

Just hours after the announcement that the driving ban would be lifted in September, women who had campaigned for that right were called and asked to not comment publicly — even positively.

Speaking before the latest round of arrests, one female activist speculated that there could be an “old camp” trying to counter Mohammed’s reforms. Others disputed that, saying he has a complete grip on power.

“There is no old guard,” Khashoggi said. “He is in total control. What’s happening is unprecedented.” It doesn’t represent the “old” Saudi Arabia, he said, but the “new Saudi.”

(Activists celebrate the passing of a new law that exempts bail requirements on certain misdemeanor offenses.)

On Tuesday, February 6th, 2017, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, signed an ordinance Tuesday that eliminates the Municipal Court’s cash bond requirement for certain low-level offenders who otherwise would be forced to sit in jail due to being unable to afford a bond.

The Atlanta Mayor stated, “…It makes no fiscal sense to hold someone in jail over a $500 bond”.

According to the many reports, after six hours of public comment and debate Monday afternoon, the City Council approved the ordinance 13-0. The bail bond industry itself appeared to be the main opponent of this law during public comments. However, citizens largely supported this effort. Sure, the bail-bonds industry may lose a little money, alas, families will be safe from the racketeering system that our legal system has become!

Like in all matters of the law, we have to strike a balance between liberty and security; Protecting the logical rights of men and their properties, while not creating monopolies that only the wealthy and the governments themselves can understand or afford to participate in. That’s the problem with our current legal system. The legal system is a glorified socialized “gun” that we use to point at one another in a “civilized” courtroom. However, it doesn’t make society any fairer or safer when that shared use of force can only be afforded by certain groups of people. Namely, the extremely poor who can claim to be “indigent” , or the extremely rich who can afford the best lawyers or to pay off judges. It is the middle-class who has no remedy. They don’t qualify for low-income exceptions, and they cannot afford a legal team of their own. Where do they go?

The legal industry and the for profit prison system, nicknamed the “Prison Industrial Complex”by many, benefits the state departments, judges, prison investors, bail bondsmen, lawyers, and police officers looking to keep their quota numbers up. However, this sort of “for profit” legal system creates another hurdle for the poor looking to get a leg-up.

Public urination, driving on a suspended license, an unpaid traffic ticket, simple possession of marijuana, — these are not charges synonymous with dangerous criminals who may flee the country or state, they are merely “infractional” petty offenders. To hold these people on a bond, who probably can’t afford the bail money, will sit in jail over such infractions whereas they are likely to lose their jobs and further slip into the cycle of legal penalties which facilitates poverty and loss of family ties.

The system doesn’t seem to care. As long as they are pulling in revenue for the system, lawmakers appear oblivious to long-term impacts on low-income families looking to escape poverty. According to statisticbrain.com, the average police officer in the USA pulls in about $300,000 per year in revenue from citations. That’s about $6,232,000,000 per year nationally! That’s a lot of revenue for infractions that could largely be forgiven, warned, or overlooked. If I receive a seat-belt ticket, and am forced to pay the state $50, how does that solve any problems? If I cannot afford the ticket, my license will be suspended, taking away my ability to get to and from work, further forcing my family into the bellows of poverty. If I get caught driving on a suspended license, I go jail.

Holding a prisoner isn’t cheap either. It costs taxpayers about $31,000 per year to feed, clothe, and house an inmate. That’s about $85 per day, much more than the cost of your average citation. But, the prison investors, bail bondsmen, law makers, government workers and attorneys who make money mitigating these issues don’t care about tax-payers or at risk families. They care about profit margins and expanding department budgets!

Some may say, “Just follow the law and it won’t be a problem!”. We must ask ourselves, why does the United States have the largest prison population in the world? Over 70% of our inmates are non-violent! It’s a money scheme! It costs $500 to legally operate a lemonade stand in America! The average American commits three misdemeanors and a felony per day without even realizing it! Literally every inch of American life has a statute or code attached to it! If the legal system can’t get you for running a red-light, maybe they can get you for being a “public nuisance” or for the bumper on your car being one inch lower than what statute allows. The more laws we create, the more criminals we create by default! It is an inadvertent consequence stemming from good intentions; or perhaps it is all designed purposely to be this way? Or perhaps, the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Regardless, this reform effort that the city of Atlanta has made, thanks to so many passionate advocates and leaders like Atlanta based attorney Gerald A. Griggs, who championed this effort, is a welcomed change! It is so rare for attorneys and politicians to come together on behalf of the poor. When these instances happen, they deserve all of our applause and credit.! I salute Mayor Lance-Bottoms and all of those who fought for the repealment of such archaic bail practices.

Sure, if a man is wanted for malicious battery,murder, rape, robbery, or grand theft auto, it makes sense to put a bail requirement on him/her. Alas, those who are subject to a bail requirement for petty offenses are merely pieces of evidence proving what a corrupt system we have. This new change in the law is an excellent move and I pray that all cities follow suit! This may seem like a small victory, but in reality, it can potentially turn into a huge wave of momentum in terms of criminal law reform.

In 2011, Barack Obama signed into law, the “America Invents Act”. After his administration received outcries from the public stating that the patent system had become too “slow” and “bogged down”, the president himself addressed congress to gather a convention whereas a new law could be created in order to stream-line the process. “What used to take days to patent, now takes years!” is what many exclaimed. Which is true, however, the population was much lower 150 years ago and society was less complicated.

Before the America Invents Act of 2011 passed, our US Patent system operated under the “Who invented it first?” principle. Just because a corporation or wealthy aristocrat filed a patent on an invention, didn’t mean he/she would necessarily get the legal protections and exclusive rights to the invention. At any point, someone could challenge or argue the filing, showing evidence that they were the original innovator who created the product, therefore they would be granted the privilege of holding the patent right.

This principle has bogged down the system in recent years because of the many challenges made towards filings, but has always protected “indie” inventors, i.e.- poor inventors who couldn’t afford to immediately file things into the USPO. Filing a patent isn’t cheap for someone who may be working a normal 9 to 5 job. Our old system ensured that those who actually created an invention would receive credit for their work instead of giving leeway to those who could simply steal someone’s research and could afford to file it under their capacity, essentially profiting from someone’s original work.

Prior to 2011, the USA, was the only country in the world, to operate under the “Who invented it first?” principle instead of the “First to File” principle. With America’s newfound obsession to “Be like the rest of the world”, we have inadvertently shot ourselves in the foot. Since the passing of this law, low-income inventors feel completely shut out of the patent system. In order to protect themselves, they have to either rush the development of their invention in order to be “The first to File”, or they have to patent each stage of development. Both tactics can be costly in terms of legal fees and result in a product that is rushed.

Under the old system, people felt less rushed to get something patented, so long as they felt confident that they could prove they were the original creators. Now, under our new system, none of that matters. To make matters worse, the America Invents Act contains tons of “ear-mark” language that exempts banks from having to pay royalties towards inventions. Many small business owners and low/middle class citizens are calling the America Invents Act the “Anti-Inventor Big Business Earmark Act ”

Big corporations can afford to file as much paper work and legal documents needed in order to secure a patent. Under the old system, if someone’s invention was stolen and then filed in as their own creation, the filer could be sued very easily. In fact, many people are abusing the new system as a way to scam competitors. People may pose as an investor or journalist, looking for feedback from inventors, then take their ideas, patent them, and then sue the original creators for trying to market their own inventions!

(Nalini-Global owner, Randell Stroud, with David Kappos)

Even though I disagree with his support for the “America Invents Act”, earlier this month, I had the chance to spend the afternoon with a man who is largely responsible for the passing of this law, David Kappos. After his lecture, we got a chance to hang out, discuss cryptocurrencies and other issues affecting IP Law. David served as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2009 to 2013. I really enjoyed picking his brain! He was a really nice guy, with a ton of wisdom in regards to IP law, however, I still disagree with his stance on this particular law.

The good news is, even though small time inventors may feel as if they are left out of the patent game, they can still somewhat protect their works through copywrite and trademarks, which are far less expensive to enforce and create. While it may not keep large corporations from totally stealing your products, it can create a legal deterrent, as defending copywrite infringements aren’t cheap. However, be forewarned, the new norm is patent lawsuits is the award attorney fees to the defendant if he can prove that your suit is without merit or there are special circumstances as was the case in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

(***FYI- Patents refer to the inventions themselves, whereas copywrites refer to the expression of an idea through literature or artistic works,)

This brings me to my next point. As a Libertarian, I can’t help but to wonder if the patent system should exist at all. Yes, if someone totally steals your design, part for part, gear for gear, even using the same logo and name for their product, we could consider this a form of fraud. Similarly comparing to an event where someone was using your legal name without your permission.

However, from a free-market perspective, if someone where to create a similar product, under a different name and logo, that performed better and was less expensive, should patent law keep him out of business? My answer is “no”! The Free-market, when allowed to function properly, correctly picks winners and losers, and does not use tax-payer money to bail-out failing products. I feel that the idea of patents themselves have turned too much into a way to monopolize a product so that companies can preserve their piece of the economic pie. Good ideas cannot be locked away from society to use.

On the other hand, it would be totally unfair for an inventor, who has spent years researching and developing a product, become a victim to marketing theft. If I were to create a website brand that looked exactly like “Reebok”, and all of my products looked exactly like the original Reebok sports brand with identical designs, with an identical logo, and then I became a millionaire, is this not a form of theft? It is worth discussing.

Without copywrite, trademark, and patent laws existing to some degree, it would be difficult to become fans of any writer, musician, or developer, because no one would know which brilliant mind that these amazing works were coming from. Unchecked “copycats” would dilute innovation and encourage stagnation of development.

On the contrary, government rules around patents, trademarks, and copywrites that become too intrusive, overbearing, and burdensome, will eventually create a wall between small-time creators reaching recognition and success, especially when you consider that their competitors will most likely be huge corporations and wealthy aristocrats who can afford the rules of the unfair legal system.

Like in all matters of the law, we have to strike a balance between liberty and security. Protecting the logical rights of men and their properties, while not creating monopolies that only the wealthy and the governments themselves can understand or afford to participate in.

That’s the problem with our current legal system. The legal system is a glorified socialized “gun” that we use to point at one another in a “civilized” courtroom. However, it doesn’t make society any fair or safer when that shared use of force can only be afforded by certain groups of people. Namely, the extremely poor who can claim to be “indigent” , or the extremely rich who can afford the best lawyers or to pay off judges. It is the middle-class who has no remedy. They don’t qualify for low-income exceptions, and they cannot afford a legal team of their own. Where do they go?

Regardless of your political ideology, it is clear– The America Invents Act needs to be scraped. If the US Patent system is slow, bogged down, and underfunded, we can come up with a new reform that doesn’t exclude up and coming inventors who cannot afford to keep up with expensive and tumultuous “first to file” system, which hasn’t spurred any major innovations in other countries.

Airplanes, cars, Televisions, the iphone/smartphone, all of these were produced under the “First to Invent” principle. These amazing inventions have changed the shape of our entire sociology. If such great inventions came from our old way of doing things, why should we seek to reinvent the wheel? Wheels are round for a reason, they are designed to “roll”. This new law is like someone suggesting that wheels should be triangular instead.

What do you all think? Should the America Invents Act remain, should we go back to the old system, or should we scrap both methodologies all together and create a brand new way of looking at patents?

Randell Stroud

Nalini-Global

2018

Randell Stroud is an experienced paralegal specializing in constitutional, bankruptcy, human rights, and international law. He has authored several books including, “Global Human Trafficking in the Family Law Courts”.

On October 28th, 2017, a rally will be held in Shelbyville,Tn. The rally is called, “White Lives Matter” lead by a group of White Nationalists. An event that I want no part of. Being a Tennessean myself, I know the history of my state very well. Tennessee,Georgia, and Alabama are cradles for The Ku Klux Klan, a group that has very much weakened in the last 50 years, yet, some racial sentiments from their heyday still live on in rural areas.

While the south has progressed quite a bit over the last few decades, there are still remnant of racial tensions. After several incidents involving white police officers killing unarmed black citizens, a group known as “Black Lives Matter”, has began to emerge. The decentralized group plans to counter protest the rally in Shelbyville. The rise of white nationalism has grown since the election of Donald Trump who espouses populist ideals. Black Lives Matter groups want to bring awareness around minorities who are targeted by police, treated unfairly in the justice system, and other problems that go ignored in their communities.

The “White Lives Matter” activists claim that police officers killing white citizens are being ignored in the media, and the constant accusations of racism against them (i.e. playing the race card), and their disdain for “Political Correctness”, is why they are speaking out. White Lives Matter claim that they are tired of being “scapegoats” for media induced race wars.

These statements do not sound extremely controversial. However, among these groups exists a more sinister wing. The same can be said of the Black Lives Matter movement. In both movements, we see disturbing trends. On the far right, we have Neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the KKK. On the far left, we have Antifa, Black Separatists, and Neo-Anarchists. On both ends of the spectrum, violence, bigotry, and hateful comments are often dispersed. Extreme opinions on both the left and the right are resulting in 1960s styled race-wars. It is truly sad to see.

Accusations of “hate-speech” have been numerous in recent years. With the rise of legalized gay marriage, transgender activism, and race riots, the label of “hate speech” is often seen in the media. Many even advocate that “hate-speech” should be illegal. Protesters on the left can be seen holding signs saying, “Hate-speech is not Free-Speech”.

Hate-Speech, as commonly defined, is any sort of slur or comment that demeans someone based on their race, religion, gender, or nationality. But, is hate-speech considered free-speech?”

Yes and no.

Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens are guaranteed the right to express grievances. There is no stipulations in the constitution as to what those grievances may be. In many instances, grievances are not always agreed upon. My grievance may be to support abortion, whereas another may consider it offensive, thus deeming it as “hate-speech”, since, in the mind of a pro-lifer, I would be advocating for something offensive to their religion.

The gray area of what is “hate speech” is very hazy. Free-Speech has been suppressed many times in American history. The Smith Act of 1940 , made it illegal for American citizens to openly support Communism or Socialism publicly during both World Wars, yet many people today support those policies without fear.

However, generally, as I understand how liberty and freedom works, is quite simple.

A man or woman has the right to say and/or believe whatever they want so long as their words are not encouraging criminal acts such as murder, theft, or vandalism. From a civil standpoint, this would also include libel and slander. Under the Civil Rights Act, this also expands into the work-place applicable to employers hiring employees without considering their race, gender, or religion.

If your words are not encouraging violence, libel, slander, or mayhem, then the Constitution supports your right to say whatever you desire, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If a man were standing on a public sidewalk holding a sign that said, “I hate White people”. Would I be offended? yes! Would I be upset? Yes. Would I organize a counter-protest? Very likely. Would I ask that his action be made illegal? No.

In some situations, the ability to say controversial things sparks debate, communication, and growth. The 1st amendment of the Constitution was not designed so that we may talk about the weather, it was designed so that people could say very controversial things outside of the norm of society without fear of suppression.

It is a very slippery slope. In fact, under the Patriot Act and the NDAA , free speech is suppressed. Under these laws, anyone who supports terrorism, even verbally, can be detained without a trial and/or placed on a watchlist effectively having their passports revoked. It sounds good in theory, until you realize that it is very ambiguous. Let’s say I post on Facebook, “I hate paying taxes!”. Under the Patriot Act, some controller from a far away office could legally monitor that comment and place me on a watchlist saying that I am advocating “anti-government” rhetoric. It seems far fetched, but it is actually happening and has happened to many people.

Soon, our political leaders will be able to silence anyone so long as they use buzzwords like: Terrorism. Racist. Homophobic. Islamphobe. Bigot. We see it all the time in politics. When Barack Obama was president, I was often called “racist” anytime I criticized him, even though my criticisms were always towards his policies and not his race, the accuser didn’t care, because my skin did not match theirs. On the flip side, when I criticize President Trump, the far-right accuses me of being an undercover “Antifa” member or a “liberal”. Some could argue that such accusations could be illegal under “libel” and “slander”, since these are attacks on my personal character/reputation. General comments made towards society and public officials are absolutely protected under the 1st amendment.

I am non-partisan and I am not easily offended, so, I let those comments roll off my shoulders, however, the point is made…

Do we truly live in a society that is only able to criticize those who look exactly like us? I may catch a lot of flack for saying this, but, I believe that a man or woman should legally be allowed to utter any comment that does not command a criminal or libelous act. If they are general comments made and they do not instruct murder,theft,vandalism,libel, or slander, then the person/group should either be left alone, or, if you disagree, you should peacefully counter-protest that individual or group.

If a protester is advocating for murder or destruction, the protester should not be counter-protested, but rather, you should call the police and have them thrown in jail because they are guilty of conspiracy. If a Neo-Nazi shouts into the streets, “I am going to kill all black people.” This is not free-speech. He is openly expressing his intent to murder anyone who has black skin. The police should be called. However, if that same Neo-Nazi exclaims, “We shouldn’t allow foreigners to immigrate into the US”, his words are extremely unintelligent, but they are not illegal.

The fact that the Neo-Nazi is even allowed to say this will spark a debate. Debates are very necessary for human evolution. The only way we can remove stupidity is to allow for stupidity to rear its ugly head so that we may publicly shame it.

Free-Speech is often confused with “popular speech”. Just because a speaker isn’t saying something that is widely accepted, doesn’t automatically mean that he/she should be locked in jail, castrated, or charged with a felony.

Are racists idiots? Yes

Should we fear all Muslims? No

Should we care whether or not Gay people get married? No, that’s their business.

Should we assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is racist? No

These are my opinions, but many may disagree. And they should have the right to.

In the words of a great philosopher….

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

On October 28th, 2017, Black Lives Matter will counter protest the “White Lives Matter” rally in shelbyville. The Constitution says that both groups are allow to commence in their activities. Both groups are legally protected. If violence, vandalism, libel, or slander is used during these rallies by either side, then you can expect arrests to be made. The judge will not care if you are a Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. If you do the crime you must do the time.

If the judge or jury issues what is perceived as an unfair verdict, the public has every right to protest, boycott, counter-sue the state, and/or express their grievances towards that also.

On September 23rd, 2017, Memphis Legislator , Antonio Parkinson, held a “Block Party For Peace” event featuring a Townhall meeting with the Child Support Enforcement Agency. Onlookers had the chance to address concerns with the agency and lawmakers directly. In attendance was, Kenya Rahmaan, founder of the child-support reform organization known as the “Child Support Hustle”, with radioshow host, Marcus Echols, on deck. The CSEA sparred with Rahmaan and Echols regarding Child Support Issues. After an intense debate, a moderator opened the floor to the audience.

(Marcus Echols, Kenya Rahmaan, and Randell Stroud of Nalini-Global)

I had the chance to approach the stand and ask several questions. I asked the following questions…

“If homosexual couples divorce, there is no man vs woman scenario. The courts are forced to look at the situation equally as far as custody goes. Why can we not treat heterosexual divorces with the same eye?”

“Why don’t fathers receive representation and case workers to assist them? Under Civil law, we are not entitled to representation, however, with so many criminal sanctions being threatened, why not make an exception?”

“Why is there a child support enforcement agency but no Child Visitation enforcement Agency?”

The CSEA responded by saying that they are a “IV-D” federally funded agency, whereas custody issues were not important to them. The representative from the CSEA said, “I know this sounds bad but, child support has no bearing on custody issues..we are a IV-D Agency”

(see video above)

What is Title IVD of the Social Security Act? The law states that, for ever dollar received in child support, the federal government agrees to pay the state with a matched amount in the form of a grant. More or less— They are making money from child support! Thus there is no incentive for shared parenting without child support being needed.

I tried to follow up with more questions but was quickly ushered away.

Mr.Parkinson did his best to remain neutral, but did agree that reform was needed. In fact, Mr.Parkinson himself sponsored a bill just last year that reduced retroactive support from indefinitely to 5 years. A major step at reducing criminal arrearages for new child support cases.

Our dream is to eventually see a norm of default 50/50 custody. There should be no presumption that women are more qualified to be custodial parents based solely on gender. Default 50/50 custody with no order of child support, unless otherwise warranted, should be the standard.

Regardless of where you stand, nearly everyone can agree that the family law system is in need of a serious update!

On August 22nd, 2017, I was invited to be a guest speaker for the “Decentralize Your Life Tour”. A national tour spearheaded by Libertarian Activist, Derrick Broze, who often finds himself in the cross-hairs of government through his independent journalism. Mr.Broze covered the “Standing Rock” protests in the Dakotas and has traveled the world advocating for a freer society. Being involved in protests have often caused him legal troubles, which is common in the practice of civil disobedience.

His message was that of, “Opting out” of the system and finding non-governmental solutions to societies problems. A notion that seems to have much support these days in light of government sponsored controversies which so frequently headline our news media outlets today.

However, when it was my turn to speak, my message, albeit sympathetic to Mr.Broze’s message of “Laissez Faire Capitalism” and “community works”, I reminded the audience that our current system is here to stay for a long time and we must learn to harness its positivity while reducing its negativity, until it is potentially no longer needed.. Additionally, those who work in government are human beings with hearts who are capable of doing great change for the world themselves and should not be looked down upon. Changing a paradigm isn’t something that happens overnight, it requires a multi-tiered approach.

I outlined several abnormalities and injustices found today within the legal system and what we can do to educate and empower ourselves while in tandem, working with government officials. Reforms and innovations are both equally effective at creating a better world for those who live in it. With the rise of the Alt-Right and Alt-Left, (Neo-Nazis Vs Antifa), we are living in very polarizing times, however, I believe a middle-ground in these debates are just what the doctor ordered!

Watch the video below to check out my introductory speech. In the speech, I make reference to my shadow report regarding corruption in the family law courts. That report can be found on the “Human Rights Reporting Page” on this website.

“Money makes the world spin”. It’s a phrase that we all know very well. Credit cards, alimony, child-support, mortgages, student loans, business loans, ….with a current 19 Trillion debt, the United States and its citizens are buried in financial problems. But, there is one thing that most of these aforementioned debts have in common, they can usually be mitigated with “settlements” and/or negotiations. However, in this article I will focus on basic lawsuits and criminal cases.

When we hear the word, “Settlement”, images of money are immediately conjured into our minds. Most of the settlements we hear about in the media are for large sums, anywhere from $50K to millions of dollars, often involving celebrities or powerful business moguls. Many people might ask, “If a party knows they are innocent, then why would they agree to settle the case?”

People settle cases for all kinds of reasons.

Save on lawyer expenses

Avoid public attention

Reduce stress/Time in court

Reduce risks of harsher sanctions from potentially losing in a trial.

Defendants often settle criminal cases for “plea” bargains. (An admittance of guilt in exchange for a lighter punishment) for similar reasons that defendants agree to settle in civil cases.

Nobody likes being in court! It is costly, time consuming, stressful and can be somewhat intimidating. Whether you are being sued for a credit card debt or facing criminal charges, the potential of being garnished, put in jail, missing time away from work and family, the presence of armed guards, black robed judges, ect…. the entire process can be a bit frightening, especially for those who do not spend much time in the courts. (Which is usually most people unless you are a legal professional, police officer, or a habitual criminal.)

When we decide to settle a case, we have to weigh our options. Defendants and Plaintiffs settle for the same reasons believe it or not. If a defendant believes he has a weak defense or is simply fed up with the court process, he is likely to settle, if a plaintiff believes he has a weak argument or he is fed up with the court process, he is likely to settle. Time is money, and people do not like to have their’s wasted!

In essence, settlements happen when people come to a conclusion after assessing in their minds a “cost-benefit-analysis”. Let us take a look at the perspective from a defendant and plaintiff’s point of view in a hypothetical discrimination case.

John sues Corporation-Z for racial discrimination. John has several witnesses who have agreed to testify. Corporation-Z learns that these witnesses with be participating. Corporation-Z believes that John has a good chance at defeating them in court. Corp-Z offers John $10,000 to settle the case out of court. If John were to win the case in court, he would probably sue for much more in damages, however, if John takes the offer, he can save himself attorney fees and months (possibly years) going to court cases.

Although Corp-Z is in a disadvantageous position, they are well-funded and will be able to drag the case on for a long time. John is a simple 9 to 5 employee with very little resources. However, John feels that he has strong evidence and is unwilling to settle for $10,000, he refuses the offer and decides to see it through to the end. Corp-Z offers another amount for $15,000, John still refuses.

Corp-Z files several continuances to drag out the case. John is getting tired.

John later finds out that several of his key witnesses have decided not to testify. John is now getting worried. Corp-Z has not yet learned that the witnesses have backed out. The next court date is in 6 weeks. John must act fast! Due to these new circumstances, his chances to win the case have gotten much lower.

At this point, John has several options:

Contact the defendant and accept their $15,000 settlement offer

Send the defendant one last counter offer for a higher amount before agreeing to settle.

Rebuild his case, look for new evidence, take the case to trial and potentially win big or end up with nothing if he loses.

Option 1 is the safest– Defendants and Plaintiffs have the option to offer and/or withdraw settlement offers at ANY TIME. In this scenario, the defendant, Corp-Z is likely to accept to settle unless new evidence has been obtained.

Option 2 is a little risky– In this situation, John has learned that his witnesses are refusing to testify. Corp-Z has not yet found out, however, if they do find out, they are very likely to withdraw any offers to settle, as they will be likely to defeat the suit. John can attempt to negotiate one last time to get a higher amount from the defendant, but it will take some time to sort out the particulars, and time is something John doesn’t have with a looming court date. The closer the trial date gets, the more likely the defendant is to find out about the witnesses backing out.

Option 3 is highly risky– If the case goes to a trial by jury and John has other evidence besides witness testimony, the jury could still see it his way. If his witnesses are his key pieces of evidence, then he is at high risk for losing. This option would require very careful consideration. If John wins the case through jury, he will likely receive a huge pay-out, if he loses the case, he could end up losing everything or even end up being counter-sued by Corporation-Z.

Factors to consider:

Is John poor? How bad does he need money? If he loses the case, will he still be financially sound? Is he looking for justice or a pay-out? What are his goals in this lawsuit? Is he mentally and emotionally prepared to stay in court for several more months? These are questions John has to ask himself before making a decision on how to proceed.

From the Defendant’s perspective:

Corporation-Z is a business and they have a business to run. Handling these legal matters are a huge cost and burden on the operation. Negative publicity can also hurt the business extensively. Even if Corporation-Z discovers that the plaintiff, John, has lost his key witnesses, it still may be beneficial for Corporation-Z to settle. Typically, when settlements occur, non-disclosure agreements must be signed stating that the allegations against the company cannot be publicly discussed. If Corp-Z refuses to settle and defeats John, John may still end up retaining his right to discuss the trial and his allegations to public organizations causing bad press not to mention the extra legal fees it may take to try and sue John later for defamation.

In this situation, if Corp-Z discovers that John has lost his witnesses, Corp-Z can agree to settle, for the same amount previously offered or for a lower amount, (since Z now has bargaining power!) or Corp-Z can withdraw all offers and attempt to win in trial.

Corporate attorneys are famous for their slogan to , “Always settle, settle, settle”.

While Corporation-Z has a good chance at defeating John, they may end up spending triple the amount of their settlement offer attempting to defeat the suit, also, Corporation-Z isn’t fully aware if John has any other additional evidence that is not yet known. Victory is not always guaranteed. In court, just as in a boxing match, the ability to appear weak when one is strong, and the ability to appear strong when one is weak, is very crucial in the negotiation process of settling a case.

Timing:

Losing a lawsuit that goes to trial can result in dire consequences.

Income garnishments

Loss of employment as a result of being garnished by multiple entities

Loss of public reputation

property being seized

injunctions being placed against yourself or your business

liens being places on your assets

Tax refunds being withheld

Negative credit score

(These are just a few examples)

Some may be tempted to file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy in light of being sued for a debt, however, I wouldn’t recommend doing so unless your debts exceed $10,000. I’ll save that discussion for another article.

Timing is very critical when it comes to successfully mitigating a civil or criminal case. Let’s say you owe a credit card company $10,000. Typically, after you default on your loan for more than 90 days, the credit card company will likely sell your debt to a third party collector. A few months to a year later, you are likely to be served with a warrant stating that you are being sued for the amount by the third party debt collector who purchased the debt for pennies on the dollar.

Once the lawsuit is filed, the creditor now has the upper-hand. Since you have essentially ignored all attempts to collect, it is assumed that you are avoiding the debt and do not have the means to pay it back. A smarter decision would have been to inquire about hardship programs or attempt to settle the debt with a partial amount before you were sued. (Always get everything in writing). However, since things have escalated to a court hearing, the creditor now probably believes that they have a great chance to win the case.

When most people owe a debt, they stick their heads in the sand and do nothing. If you are sued for a credit card debt, your goal now is to re-establish your bargaining power! Even if you owe the debt, make them prove it! File an answer to the lawsuit, file a discovery request, ask for continuances! ( I can help you do these things by offering a template to follow.) Once the creditor sees that you aren’t going to be like the other 99% of people who don’t show up to court and allow for a default judgement, the creditor will be likely willing to settle the debt for a fraction of what they are suing you for.

While you are fighting the lawsuit, whether your intention is to get it dismissed through lack of evidence,lack of itemization or your goal is to settle the debt for a lesser amount, you must act swiftly! If you do intend to settle the debt, be sure to make the number attractive but not too high. If you owe $10,000, offer them 30%, because they are likely to counter back asking for 50%.

If the creditor is not willing to settle and/or you lose the case, enroll in a “slow-pay” program. That’s right! If you lose a lawsuit, you can enroll in a “slow-pay” program whereas you may only be paying $20 a month or so to the creditor. (Albeit for a very long time!). Through the slow-pay process, you can pay with a check or money order. In order for the plaintiff (or creditor) to garnish your wages, they have to get an approved garnishment order from a court. If you miss a single-payment through the slow-pay program, some jurisdictions automatically issue a garnishment order because of your lack of ability to keep your promise to pay.

Federal law protects workers from being fired if they are being garnished by a single entity. However, if two or more entities are garnishing you, federal law allows employers to fire you because of the administrative burden your garnishment orders are costing to the company you work for.

Any legal case must be taken seriously whether it be criminal or civil. Even traffic court can cost us! If you ignore a traffic ticket, don’t be surprised if you later find out that your drivers license has been revoked! Reinstating a revoked license is time consuming and can cost hundreds, even thousands, depending on the liens placed upon the license.

In many criminal cases, district attorneys will offer “plea deals”. This “deal” is basically where you agree to admit guilt in exchange for a lighter punishment. Plea deals can benefit both parties. The district attorney meets his conviction quota, you receive a lighter sentence than you would if you lost your trial, and the process of court is sped up.

Going back to the lessons we learned earlier about, “Appearing strong when you are weak, and to be weak when you are strong”, accepting plea deals is an art within itself just as accepting settlements are.

Example:

John is accused of stealing a car. John maintains that he is innocent.

John’s witnesses didn’t show up to court.

The state offers him a plea deal. Admit guilt and you will only face 6 months in jail.

John refuses! The trial continues

The state is having a hard time presenting evidence against John.

The state offers a new plea deal.

“1 month in jail with 6 months probation.”

John again refuses and demands a jury.

The jury hears John’s defense and the state’s allegations against him.

The jury decides that John is guilty! John will be sentenced to 3 years in prison.

John should have taken the plea deal!

Now, this is a worse case scenario! Just as in our lawsuit example earlier with, “Corporation-Z”, many factors come into play.

Let us replay the scenario. This time, John has several alibis and video surveillance of the vehicle being stolen that he managed to find on the internet. The video is low-quality but the suspect appears to have red-hair, John has brown hair!

John challenges the state’s claim. The state claims that John merely dyed his hair brown and his alibis are lying about where he was during the alleged carjacking!

John is confident in his defense and refuses all plea deals.

The jury finds John innocent!

Had John taken a plea deal, he would have ruined his record and served time for a crime he never committed! However, the jury could have still convicted him. No matter how confident you feel in your case, always prepare for the unexpected and don’t be afraid to appeal if necessary to buy yourself more time.

When to refuse a plea deal or when to take one, is no different than debating on whether or not to take a settlement. Many innocent men and women have taken plea deals for crimes they didn’t commit on the advice of their attorney who advised their client that the evidence is just too strong against them; even though they maintain their innocence.

Some defendants value their honor so much, that they resolve to never take a plea deal regardless of the consequences, whereas others make informed decisions in an effort to preserve themselves. In law, there is no “black or white”, “right or wrong” choice. Everything is about weighing risks vs rewards. Every situation is completely different.

Who is the judge presiding over this case? Who are the jurors? What state is this case being held in? What do the state laws say? Are you in a liberal state or a conservative state? Does your lawyer have a good reputation or a bad reputation? Are you handling this case pro-se? Do you have any experience with legal matters?

These are all questions that can drastically effect the outcome of a case, or as I call them , “The intangible factors”. In your heart, you may know that you are innocent, or feel that your case is valid, however, it isn’t always about what you “feel”, it’s about what you can convincingly present to the courts in conjunction with applicability of the law.

If you are involved in a lawsuit or criminal case as either a plaintiff or defendant, be sure to check out our “Legal Services” page. Our programs there offer legal defense funds for people starting as low as $20 per month with unlimited consultations with licensed attorneys. If you want to consult with me personally, follow instructions on my Consulting Page . I can offer you one-time friendly advice, educational lessons, templates, and other resources to you, however I cannot offer you legal advice as I am not a licensed attorney, thus, anything I advise you on will have to be taken as “friendly” advice, not legal advice. I have been working in the legal-field as paralegal/researcher for about 7 years and have experience in various jurisdictions and areas of law.

The United States , as well as the international community, will be participating in a global study to potentially reschedule a host of illegal and/or regulated substances including Ketamine, Carfentanil. CBD (cannabidiol) and various other narcotics. Nalini-Global has submitted an official comment to the convention and will also be submitting this article to the secretariat of the World Health Organization as secondary material to be referenced at the later stages of the study.

An official notice by the FDA was released regarding the convention and its procedures: (Read as follows)

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of 17 drug substances. These comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drugs. This notice requesting comments is required by the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).”

As you can tell from the notice, the FDA as well as the World Health Organization, are inviting persons of interests as well as international organizations, to be involved in the discussion of rescheduling certain “drugs” or having certain ones completely removed from scheduling. We here at Nalini-Global have decided to throw our hats into the discussion and submit an official comment to be reviewed during the convention which is set to be discussed after the deadline for submitting comments has passed. (September 13th, 2017)Each member state must provide an official response to the secretariat of the World Health Organization by September 30th,2017.

Upon first glance, many readers might say, “Drugs are bad! There is no discussion to be had!”. However, many countries have decriminalized all drugs or have put more focus into “harm reduction strategies”. Countries like Portugal and Switzerland, treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not as a criminal one. ( Mind you, “decriminalization” and “legalization” are not the same thing. )

In the scope of this convention, various substances are being looked at to see whether or not they have any medical value and/or whether or not these substances should be reclassified or possibly completely removed from the drug “schedules”. What are “schedules”? Drug schedules are essentially a chart that labels certain substances in levels of potential danger from use. There are Five Schedules. Schedule I drugs include, cocaine, heroine, LSD, Marijuana(including CBD products), Peyote, Ecstasy, and a few others. According to the Schedule I guidelines created by the FDA, Schedule I drugs are considered “highly addictive” and pose a potential for abuse.

Currently, the United States of America has the largest prison population in the world, more than Russia or China combined. Over 70% of American inmates are incarcerated on drug related charges. This prison industrial complex creates economic barriers and deep scars on those effected. While it is Nalini-Global’s position that all drugs should be decriminalized in a way that is similar to what Portugal and Switzerland have implemented, we have decided to focus on “Cannabis”, specifically “Cannabidiol” also known as “CBD”.

While some argue the benefits of psychedelics such as Peyote, LSD, and other substances, pushing for decriminalization in the United States appears to be a far-cry in the midst of America’s 30 year long, “War on Drugs”. Alas, pushing for the legalization and/or decriminalization of Cannabis, specifically CBD, makes alot more sense. Hence, why so many comments submitted towards this convention have specifically requested that CBD be removed from the schedules completely.

While some may argue that marijuana is dangerous because of its intoxicating effects and should remain illegal (except for under the supervision of a doctor for medical purposes), such arguments cannot logically be made towards CBD. CBD is one of the cannabanoids found in Cannabis and its related plant, “Hemp”. CBD is non-intoxicating and acts on “CB2” receptors in the body, while THC (the intoxicating compound found in marijuana) , mainly acts on “CB1” receptors in the body. These receptors influence pain, inflammation responses, mood, sleep patterns, and other functions in the body.

That’s right! The human body is actually built with cannabanoid receptors, as if nature intended for this plant to be consumed. Most Marijuana strains are bred and sold with very high THC content. THC is the chemical that gives the user a sense of euphoria, pleasure, and does have pain relief and anti-tumor fighting properties, however, it can cause paranoia and impairment. CBD is one of the compounds found in marijuana and hemp that contains no intoxicating effects yet retains most of the medical benefits that THC has to offer and then some! Calming anxiety, reducing inflammation and pain, inducing relaxation, stopping seizures, the list goes on!

When we hear the word, “Drug”, we immediately think of intoxication and danger. However, CBD poses no danger. Even in very high dosages, the only reported side-effect was lowered-blood pressure which returned to normal when use was discontinued.

Celebrities such as Michael J Fox, Montel Williams, and Whoopi Goldberg have also publicly endorsed the use of CBD’s for their own health issues. Michael J Fox, actor and comedian, stated that CBD was the only thing that reduced his tremors caused by Parkinson’s disease. Montell Williams stated, quote, “Snowboarding and Cannabis saved my life and have helped me combat my disease of Muscular Sclerosis.”

When THC and CBD are ingested in balanced amounts as such found in cannabis strains like, “Harlequin”, the medicinal effects of cannabis are fully realized. However, the Hemp plant, which contains almost no THC, does have a high amount of CBD. CBD by itself is not quite as powerful alone without the other dozen cannabanoids supporting it, which are naturally found in Cannabis, yet it remains extremely beneficially and extremely safe. In my opinion, CBD should be regulated as if it were a vitamin C tablet, to be sold in stores everywhere. Due to it not have any major adverse effects from use or found to be intoxicating in any shape or form, it makes no sense for it to be included in the FDA’s drug schedules.

To read Nalini-Global’s official comment submitted to the Convention on Narcotics, please refer to the information below.

The Paducah Police Department of Kentucky has recently launched a new initiative known as the, “Lock it or Lose it” campaign. Officers will now be encouraged to conduct sweeps around the city to check vehicles parked on public property, to see if they are properly locked and/or if valuables are in plain-view. If the vehicle is found to be unlocked and unattended by the owner, the officer will run the license plate and make attempts to reach the owner of the vehicle by telephone. If the officer cannot make contact, the officer will place a door hanger on the owner’s registered home address linked to the license plate. The informational door hanger will contain a warning to keep their vehicle properly locked up.

Officers who come across vehicles that are properly locked, will leave a “Thank you” card on the windshield of the vehicle. On the back of the card, a survey can be completed and mailed to the Paducah Police Department. Those who fill out the survey are automatically entered into a drawing contest to win prizes. Officer Christopher Fearon recently spoke on a local Television program called “The Paducah View“, promoting the initiative stating that , “….Paducah is a safe town to live in, and sometimes people gain a false sense of security because of that.” The initiative is not a nation-wide federal mandate, however, other cities and states have launched similar programs such as the “Lock it or Lose it” program launched in Lakeland,Florida last year. The Lakeland Police Department uses even more invasive tactics such as placing a bright orange cone on the top of an unlocked vehicle and leaving “lock it or leave it” brochures inside of the vehicle in order to send a “wake up” message to the car owner to lock up his/her valuables.

According to an article written by the West Kentucky Star, Officer Fearon states that, “……the Paducah Police Department will not leave warning hangers on the car itself nor will they open the car doors.” However, there is a million dollar question that comes with such a statement.

How can you know if a car is unlocked unless you try to open it?

On the surface, such a program may seem innocent or even well-intended. To be honest, it probably is well intended. Some may jump to conspiracy theories about, “Big Brother is Watching”, or claim that there is some secret agenda, yet, I believe it is simply a plan that is not well-thought out albeit well intended.

I have two problems with this initiative.

A potential breach of the 4th Amendment

An abuse of power

For an officer to make contact with a person or his property, there generally has to be “probable cause” or “Reasonable Suspicion”. “Probable cause” is a principle that is highly debated, especially with practices such as the “Terry Stop” being the norm these days. A “Terry Stop”, is more a less an officer’s legal right to stop someone for questioning if the subject is doing something “suspicious” but is not engaging in a blatant activity that warrants probable cause for arrest or seizure of property.

Looking at the “Lock it or Lose It” program, I can see many pitfalls with this well-intended program.

Under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, a private individual has the right to be secure in his possessions and maintain his privacy. This includes his home, his personal belongings, his e-mails, text messages, and yes……his vehicle! If an officer wants to enter the home of a citizen, search a vehicle, or seize property, he must obtain a warrant signed from a judge or the subject must voluntarily consent.

If an officer routinely approached your house, unwarranted, and began to “jiggle” the locks on your door to make sure they are “secured”, would you feel safer or violated? If your answer is “violated”, then you are probably not a supporter of this initiative. Or at least you shouldn’t be. In order for an officer to determine whether or not a vehicle is locked, unless the door is left wide-open, the officer will have to physically attempt to open the door of the vehicle. The Paducah Police Department claims that they will not open doors, but how else could they test whether or not a car door is locked?

If this program becomes the norm around the nation, citizens will begin to develop a false-sense of trust for law enforcement officers who “check” their locks. While I believe most officers have good hearts and truly want to protect their communities, who is to say that this program wouldn’t be alluring to an officer who may be inclined to use this program to conduct full on searches or to plant evidence illegally? This type of program could create a curtain for abuse of power and make it easier for law enforcement to target citizens or to obtain an arrest and/or conviction.

If my car is stolen, or my valuables are taken because of my own negligence, I have no one to blame but myself and the person who lacks the moral aptitude to refrain from stealing. Our local police are already burdened with investigators looking to track down murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and other violent criminals. We cannot expect law enforcement to protect us 24/7 unless we all agreed to live in a militarized police-state where our every action, thought, and movement were all being recorded or monitored.

With the rise of the TSA, Terrorist threats and the controversy surrounding the “NSA Spy Program” leaked by former intelligence officer Edward Snowden, many Americans look at this program with the same question that has plagued us all since September 11th, 2001.

“How do we balance security while respecting our individual liberty and privacy?”

The police and military have a job to do. Their #1 duty is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of their fellow residents and citizens. Their job is not to make sure we button up our shirts correctly, brush our teeth every morning, or lock our cars when we run inside the grocery store to purchase a loaf of bread.

Not only is this program disrespecting the 4th amendment of the Constitution, but it is also creating unnecessary, “Busy Work” for police officers who could be applying their time and resources towards tackling and solving crimes that are actually taking place or have already taken place. From a tax burden issue, who will pay for these informational cards to be printed up? What will be the administrative cost of this program a year from now? How many man hours will be dedicated to this program? These, among other issues, certainly need to be addressed before further implementation of this program continues.

What are your thoughts? Should the program be discontinued, altered, or do you see it as perfectly innocent?